Shabbat Parashat Shoftim| 5765
Shoftim | | 1/2/2004
The apparent contradiction between our parasha’s instructions for appointing a king (Devarim 17: 14-20) and Shmuel’s harsh response to Bnei Yisrael’s request to do so (Shmuel I, 8) is one of the most perplexing topics in Tanach. Commentaries have various explanations of the cause of the affront to both Hashem and Shmuel.
Case: The defendant (=def) rented a winery from the plaintiff (=pl) over several years. There were contracts for only some years, and each was for one year only. Pl says that def promised to give 6 months warning before leaving (in fact, he gave 3 weeks). Def says that he never promised to inform in advance and that he decided on the move recently. Pl, who sublets the winery from its owner, lost money because he did not find someone to replace def.
The reason that the land-based mitzvot beganbeforethe conquest of Eretz Yisrael, as they returned from Bavel, is that their right to inhabit the Land was recognized by the Persians, who controlled it. Similarly, there was no mitzva of conquest at all under those circumstances. The Ramban brings proofs as to the Torah-level mitzva of conquest from David. That, though, is a proof only regarding the First Commonwealth.
This edition of
A weekly divrei Torah leaflet: A Glimpse at the Parasha, Ask the Rabbi, From the writings of Harav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook, zt”l, Pninat Mishpat (Jewish Monetary Law).